Science vs. Religion: A Thought Experiment for Bible-Believers

Anyone can respond, of course, but I thought of you in particular @TruthMuse for this OP: 

I imagine that like me, you too have run into your fair share of Christians on the fringe who believe the 'clear', 'plain' teaching of the Bible is that the earth is flat and at the center of the cosmos, and that the sun, moon, and stars are fixed features in a solid firmament dome that slowly turns causing the sun, moon, and stars to go from east to west across the sky.

These individuals believe that any attempt to say otherwise is heresy against the plain teaching of Scripture. They believe the Bible teaches a geocentric, not heliocentric view.  They wholeheartedly believe that no aircraft has traveled above a certain altitude.  This would be impossible, after all, because they would crash into the solid firmament!  

Correspondingly, they believe no spacecraft have ever gone into space and that all such claims, including things like the space shuttle, satellites, and the moon landing, are fakes and conspiracies conjured up by depraved men who are determined to lead us astray from the clear teaching of God's Word. They insist that there is no proof, no scientific evidence that the earth is round and goes around the sun, and that 'atheistic' science is a fallible product of depraved men who are hell bent and determined to brainwash us with their ungodly ways and false beliefs in contradiction of the clear teaching of Scripture.

They further insist that Christians who have bought into the round-earth, heliocentric 'lies' of 'atheistic' science are heretics and sell-outs who put their faith in foolish, fallible man more than they do God, and elevate evil, depraved 'atheistic' science above the clear teaching of God's infallible Word.  

How do you even begin to reason with such people? (Rhetorical question, because I'm not sure you even can).

Now it's hard not to notice some parallels between these flat earth Christians and young earth creationists.  One need only swap out the flat earth terms and replace them with YEC terminology, and we practically have the YEC platform complete with the same types of rhetoric about 'evil' 'atheistic' science with its depraved lies about evolution and an old earth that Christian sell-outs have bought into by putting their faith in fallible men more than God and elevating 'atheistic' science above the clear teaching of God's Word, etc., etc., etc.

But let me lay that aside for the moment, and take things in a different direction with a thought experiment I'd like to try.  Imagine for a moment that the flat-earthers were correct in saying a geocentric, flat-earth is what the Bible actually teaches.  Now scientifically we know that a geocentric, flat-earth view is flat-out wrong (pardon the pun).  But imagine if the Bible still taught this scientifically erroneous view.  How would you, as a Bible-believer, reconcile the two? (This is a thought experiment, so feel free to be creative) (There is only *one rule*: you're not allowed to say they can't be reconciled.  You must find a solution.  You must find a way for science and the Bible to coexist without *directly* contradicting each other; an *apparent* contradiction is OK but not a real, outright one) (No, I don't have any prizes for successful completion. Sorry).  

No matter how hard you believe something is true if it is false it is still a lie. As I watch the these forums I see things in both arenas are a shade or two away from truth.

That's the great thing about thought experiments...

If the Bible taught the earth was flat, not to convey a theological truth but to make a scientific claim, I would:

1. Chalk it up to the ignorance of people at the time
2. Technically not reconciling the Bible with science, but reject the Bible (as there are many, many reasons from a scientific point of view, a special effects point of view, and knowing what I know about the intelligence community, the moon landing cannot be faked).

From what I understand, while it was widely believed throughout much of history until the end of the Middle-Ages that the Earth was at the centre of creation, few people believed it was flat.

Those who went to sea could actually see the curvature of the Earth.

With respect for reasoning with people who cannot see reason, others have said that reasoning isn't their real problem. For those who hold contrary views in the face of facts, reality will always remain a mystery. They can look at life, see it looks designed, yet refuse to accept what is in front of them because it doesn't fit their worldview, so they call the reality they see an illusion. They will spend their time protecting their own personal illusions.

Personally, I see the parallels between flat earth Christians and those that believe in evolution from a common ancestor to the variety of life today, does that make it all better? I don't, however, believe that those who are Christian and believe in evolution are Christians in name only; it's their relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old they think the world is that matters, or how life arose in the beginning.

In a systematic approach to the scriptures, we cannot take one verse or passages and pluck them out to say it means something different if we cause it to disagree with the rest of the scripture. Now can I be wrong about a meaning? Sure, I can be wrong about many things in scripture and how I view the universe. Scripture, I don't believe, contradicts itself; our grasp of it could cause us to error, which is why prayer and the Holy Spirit are so important.

I don't believe science and the Bible contradict each other; science is constantly changing because it has to. Biblical truths cannot change because if they are describing reality, they shouldn't. The thing about reality and truth, neither of those things will be altered because we have a wrong view of them using either science or religion.

One of the things I like about Christianity is the Bible and the gospel story, they are not just thought of as poems or nice religious writings that have nothing to do with reality, but historical truths. As historical truths, they can be challenged and falsified as things that were written were very specific in many cases. It is healthy to validate these things, just as it is with every other truth claim people make. 

True, but if the Bible made scientific claims for the sake of science (not theology) it would limit the message (as science is changing and wouldn’t be relevant to to a number of cultures), and that is ultimately what I would have a problem with. Lucky, the Bible doesn’t do that.

It's almost like we get what we need not what we want.

So you disagree?

There are a lot of things in the Bible, some deal with truth in the universe, lies, and evil of man, and so on. What would a scientific claim look like in the days the text was written? People have a hard time today dealing with God made them male and female. The real issues have to do with us in my opinion not so much scripture.

But what about the thought experiment?  How would you reconcile the hypothetical example I gave in post #1?

So what I'm hearing is there wouldn't necessarily be a contradiction with science if the Bible wasn't meant to convey modern science but was meant to convey something else like theological truths as you note.  Is that the gist of what you're saying?

I would pray, as I told you if someone cannot be reasoned with reason isn't ever going to change them, because their issue is not reason.

But that wasn't the question posed in the thought experiment.  You're answering the rhetorical question I said didn't need to be answered because it was rhetorical.  I'm talking about the question that comes after that.  You need to read the entire post #1 to the end.

(Or simply jump to the last paragraph in post #1 and read that)

Exactly.

I would reject the scripture that obviously didn't portray reality in an undeniable way.

Oops, you missed the one and only rule in the thought experiment: you can't reject, but must find a way to reconcile the two (remember this is a thought experiment so you can be creative in your answer).

See, for example, @TerminatorC800's solution in post #16

I'm not playing.

You're gonna miss out on the fun then. 

I thought you'd want to weigh-in.  My mistake.